Seanp
Banned
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Neapolitan, Swiss, Slavic
What would make someone to be part of the ruling class?
I'd describe with the following statements:
- Above authority as their wealth influence masses and the lawmaking forces are under their control (law, military)
- Own right to control culture and education. It's been happening in every century that the church, monopoly owners, investors had rights to influence media though power and of course money.
- Passive income through investments and taxes. - Notice having passive income won't make anyone to be part of the controlling power but the ability to taxes the masses is a way of control that can't be done by just the few of the actual controllers of the economical hierarchy.
Who is typically someone part of the ruling class?
- Politicians?
Politicians just like the Church were part of the authority to control thoughts and basic laws of the citizens, or they supposed to convince citizens that their control is the most influential and other substances of the system have little to no to say when it comes to lawmaking and taxing.
My own view is that politicians are part of the ruling class but not belong to the lawmaking and their task is to give a sort of "freedom feeling" for the majority that their votes and intentions are important. In a less complex way politicians are a sort of medicine to cure the majority's little man syndrome.
In reality politicians may be like dealers who make a direct connection between the ruling class and the masses as they give the directions to political elite and influence their actions.
To understand it we have to understand each political parties have limited assets and the assets are provided by who?
In order to have a successful political party for the ability of campaign including advertisement though TV they need investors who usually belong the a certain power and hold a significant role.
Wealth distribution:
When it comes to taxing..
Handbook of Human ownership
I'd describe with the following statements:
- Above authority as their wealth influence masses and the lawmaking forces are under their control (law, military)
- Own right to control culture and education. It's been happening in every century that the church, monopoly owners, investors had rights to influence media though power and of course money.
- Passive income through investments and taxes. - Notice having passive income won't make anyone to be part of the controlling power but the ability to taxes the masses is a way of control that can't be done by just the few of the actual controllers of the economical hierarchy.
Who is typically someone part of the ruling class?
- Politicians?
Politicians just like the Church were part of the authority to control thoughts and basic laws of the citizens, or they supposed to convince citizens that their control is the most influential and other substances of the system have little to no to say when it comes to lawmaking and taxing.
My own view is that politicians are part of the ruling class but not belong to the lawmaking and their task is to give a sort of "freedom feeling" for the majority that their votes and intentions are important. In a less complex way politicians are a sort of medicine to cure the majority's little man syndrome.
In reality politicians may be like dealers who make a direct connection between the ruling class and the masses as they give the directions to political elite and influence their actions.
To understand it we have to understand each political parties have limited assets and the assets are provided by who?
In order to have a successful political party for the ability of campaign including advertisement though TV they need investors who usually belong the a certain power and hold a significant role.
Wealth distribution:
When it comes to taxing..
Do the wealthy pay lower taxes than the middle class?
A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week.
The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.
Washington state had the most regressive state tax system, taxing the poorest residents at 16.8 percent while taxing the top 1 percent at only 2.4 percent, the study said. Florida ranked number two, with the poor paying 12.9 percent of their income to taxes, while the top 1 percent pay 1.9 percent. Texas ranked third, with the bottom playing 12.5 percent and the top 1 percent paying 2.9 percent. The main reason: None of those states have personal income taxes, which tend to be progressive.
California is the most progressive state, with the poorest residents paying 10.5 percent and the top 1 paying 8.7 percent. (You can check your own state here.) Among the other most progressive states are Delaware, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon and Vermont, which all have progressive state income taxes.
for more information about the study: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/15/do-the-wealthy-pay-lower-taxes-than-the-middle-class.html
Handbook of Human ownership
https://board.freedomainradio.com/p...ownership_a_manual_for_new_t ax_farmers.html
"People think that ethics were invented to make people good, but that's like saying that chastity belts were invented to spread STDs. No, no - ethics were invented to bind the minds of the slaves, and to create the only true shackles we rulers need: guilt, self-attack and a fear of the tyranny of ethics. Whoever teaches ethics rules the herd, because everyone is afraid of bad opinions, mostly from themselves. If you do it right, no judgment will be as evil or endless as the one coming from the mirror.
This is all fairly straightforward - however, the ethics required to control slaves requires the creation of a paradise after death that they can look forward to, if only they continue to obey their masters. This harvests the muscles of the slaves, but not their minds, which remain depressed and alienated and otherworldly and, well, economically fairly useless. Basically, you're saying "Hey, let's double down, shall we? I'll trade you pretty much everything in this life for everything in the afterlife, mmmkay?" It really only takes a moment's thought to realize that anyone making that deal has no belief in the afterlife - I mean, look at the gold palaces of the Pope, for heaven's sake! - but frankly, a moment's thought appears to be a moment too long for most people."
The feudal approach improved on the direct slave-owning model by granting the human livestock ("serfs") nominal ownership over land, while taking a portion of their productivity through taxes, military conscription, user fees for grinding grain and so on. So instead of owning folks directly, we just let them sweat themselves into puddles on their little ancestral plots, then took whatever we wanted from the proceeds -- all the while telling them, of course, that God Himself appointed us as masters over them, and that their highest virtue was meek subservience to their anointed masters, blah blah. Again, you might be thinking that, historically, God seems to have had a very soft spot for the most violent, entitled and warlike of His flock - and if meek submission was a virtue, why was it not practiced by the rulers, and so on, but don't worry; you need to just put these entirely natural thoughts right out of your head, because once the people become enslaved, basic reasoning just short-circuits in their tiny minds, so that they do not see the cramped horrors of their little lives.
Anyway, the evolution of medieval serfdom split society into four basic groups:
1. The ruling class (aristocracy);
2. The church (propaganda);
3. The army (enforcement) - and;
4. The serfs (livestock).